5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Rawicz.
6.  On 28 April 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted robbery and threats to kill, committed in an organised criminal group carrying out robberies, extorting money by threats and drug trafficking.
7.  On 23 May 1995 the Poznań District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The subsequent decisions of the court of 27 May and 26 June 1995 further extending his detention (by the latter until 27 July 1995) were based on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the severity of the likely sentence. It was also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony.
8.  The applicant was released from a detention centre on 25 July 1995 by the Poznań District Court's decision and assigned a probation officer with the obligation to report to the latter on a weekly basis. He failed however to do so. Following his release he went into hiding and the criminal investigation against him had to be suspended. Subsequently an arrest warrant was issued by the authorities.
9.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant was again arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and of leading a criminal group organised along military lines. Subsequently the criminal investigation was reopened and conducted jointly with the proceedings concerning offences allegedly committed by the applicant after his release in 1995.
10.  By a decision of the Poznań District Court of 17 January 1999 he was detained on remand.
11.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Poznań Regional Court's decisions of 5 May, 13 July, 20 December 1999, 12 July, 12 August 2000 and 9 July 2001, and by the Poznań Court of Appeal's decisions of 10 October 2000 and 4 October 2001. In all the afore-said decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of a very complicated investigation, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses and to obtain fresh evidence from experts, justified holding him in custody. The courts further stressed that there was a serious risk of the applicant going into hiding, in particular having regard to the fact that he had been sought pursuant to a wanted notice before his arrest.
12.  The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against all these decisions, arguing that the charges against him were based on unreliable and contradictory evidence.
13.  He further requested to have the preventive measure replaced by a more lenient one, but his motions were dismissed on 6 April 1999 by the Poznań Regional Prosecutor and on 13 October 1999 and 8 January 2001 by the Poznań Regional Court.
14.  On 9 July 1999 the Poznań Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Poznań Regional Court. The applicant was charged with leading an organised criminal group involved in drug trafficking, extortion of money, armed robberies, illegal possession of weapons and damaging cars. There were 11 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous offences committed in the said organised criminal group. Seven out of the eight charges concerned crimes committed after the applicant's release from detention on remand in 1995. The prosecutor requested that 50 witnesses be heard by the court.
15.  The Poznań Regional Court held twenty one hearings between 19 November 1999 and 12 December 2000. Only one hearing – scheduled for 11 July 2000 – was cancelled due to the non-appearance of witnesses.
16.  During a hearing held on 29 September 2000 the applicant was punished for contempt of court (using abusive and vulgar language). During the same hearing the applicant's lawyer declared that his client would not cooperate with him. Hence, the court decided to adjourn the hearing due to the applicant's conflict with his counsel.
17.  During a hearing held on 12 December 2000 the court decided to examine the applicant's case separately from that of the other co-accused. The court found that as the applicant's lawyer was in conflict with the applicant regarding the conduct of the defence and had to be replaced, it would adjourn the proceedings in his case while continuing the trial with respect to the other co-accused.
18.  Following the severance of the applicant's case and the appointment of a new counsel, the Poznan Regional Court held hearings in the applicant's case on 10 January, 13 February, 7 and 17 March 2001, when the proceedings were finally closed.
19.  On 2 April 2001 the Poznań Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to 9 years' imprisonment.
20.  On 22 November 2001 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 6 May 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the appellate court for reconsideration. The court found that the “military character” of the group in which the applicant had participated was not sufficiently proved since the use of firearms had been isolated. At the same time, it prolonged the applicant's detention on remand.
21.  On 17 June 2003 the Poznań Court of Appeal amended its previous judgment in that it acquitted the applicant of the charge of membership of a criminal group of a military character and sentenced him to 8 years' imprisonment.
22.  On 2 April 2004 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the applicant's cassation appeal as being manifestly ill-founded. No reasoning for this decision was given.